Re: [Rats] Call for adoption of draft-birkholz-rats-reference-interaction-model

Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com> Fri, 14 August 2020 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <lgl@island-resort.com>
X-Original-To: rats@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rats@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 462323A11C4 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 11:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.894
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JBEDTsQPlkOm for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 11:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plsmtpa12-07.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa12-07.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [68.178.252.236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F176D3A0FE7 for <rats@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 11:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.78] ([76.167.193.86]) by :SMTPAUTH: with ESMTPA id 6eVVkA3nN8B0s6eVWk9My8; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 11:32:50 -0700
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=B97HL9lM c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=t2DvPg6iSvRzsOFYbaV4uQ==:117 a=t2DvPg6iSvRzsOFYbaV4uQ==:17 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=Lyj-tKl4kf5N2EBW_WUA:9 a=C4eKisNKb83Rdvdn:21 a=Iq6MWgrJsuPEguE_:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=4swtI4kOnyIL86qi:21 a=I7-ZTxpvEOLmXQop:21 a=cZfDxADVmFseAqKl:21 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22
X-SECURESERVER-ACCT: lgl@island-resort.com
From: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>
Message-Id: <D4B37433-E0DF-4FE4-84E1-A8880359190B@island-resort.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_996278DF-C085-4454-B891-4845CC8E95DC"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 11:32:48 -0700
In-Reply-To: <DBDAA23E-74BC-45C7-AA87-C303963131CE@cisco.com>
Cc: "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
To: "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <ncamwing=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <DBDAA23E-74BC-45C7-AA87-C303963131CE@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfI/wGC6KIbPiNIvUJSB1wU8Jb659CS874VkqKdzDxFGYVNpKlN+BR5ExRvqKVoeHb3Hb0WHIbU2pZbl4EiLlLvSrkoy6Eyx2Uih1Ow/70n/sNFhXj0ky 6slL29iPTtDYfzpVee1oYUljsN9qmJAl/opmkJswo4fapZhWN2SUlYUMKaCKzb9r2pLntpd7uURWAh/9xJ/wVgDLnts0O/CbGs587OgCDB1ay8NdXTdmmO3H
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/ynQ_yvg1l8spEIa7VsWQ_wFd3U0>
Subject: Re: [Rats] Call for adoption of draft-birkholz-rats-reference-interaction-model
X-BeenThere: rats@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Remote ATtestation procedureS <rats.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rats>, <mailto:rats-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rats/>
List-Post: <mailto:rats@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rats-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats>, <mailto:rats-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 18:32:53 -0000

Henk and others, can you comment on how this relates to FIDO, Android Attestation, ARM PSA Token and such?

It seems that a decision has to be taken as to whether this is:
- THE generic interaction model for all of RATS in which case FIDO, Android and such have to fit into it
- One interaction model specific to a subset of RATS use cases

I did a quick read and it seems like FIDO, Android and such could fit. But it seems a commitment one way or the other is needed up front. If it is THE model, then the work to make sure it is fully generic needs to be done. People (not just me) will have to review it to see if it fits all attestation use cases. If it doesn’t there will be writing to do.

Right now it seems framed as THE interaction mode (abstract, introduction sections). Are the authors committing to this as THE Rats interaction model?

I think this needs to be clear before the document is adopted.

LL


> On Aug 12, 2020, at 1:25 PM, Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) <ncamwing=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Hello RATs members,
> At our IETF 108 session we discussed the draft:  
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-birkholz-rats-reference-interaction-model/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-birkholz-rats-reference-interaction-model/>
>  
> There was interest in the discussion on the adoption of the topic, but ran out of time to get consensus on “where” these interaction models should be documented.  Further, Henk started an email thread prior to our session to get a sense of interest and where these models would best be described.
> Given those results, there seemed to be a preference to keep the document as a standalone draft that describes all models.
>  
> Thus, this is a Call for Adoption of the draft-birkholz-rats-reference-interaction-model to serve as the starting point for a standalone draft that describes all models.  If you have reservations for documenting interaction models, or for such a document to be a standalone draft to describe all of them please respond to the mail list and provide rationale for your concerns.
>  
> The call for adoption will end on Aug 28.
>  
> Best, Nancy (on behalf of the RATs chairs)
>  
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> RATS@ietf.org <mailto:RATS@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats>